Originally posted by TheCowI'm somewhat surprised Eck got in before Gossage; does anyone think this means the HoF is finally getting over its avoidance of closers, or does the fact that Eck started for part of his career carry him in?

Eck had 150 wins as a starter _before_ he switched to the pen. THEN he became super-closer and added an MVP and a Cy Young to his resume. Goose had a nice 10-12 year run as a dominant closer under slightly different circumstances, but doesn't have what I mentioned for Eck.

"As far as my lack of professional courtesy and my obvious immature humor in referring to using your head as a pickle jar, well, I reserve my courtesy for those whom I respect. Your lack of personal integrity has given me much grief, and I find that thinking of your hollowed-out head sitting on top of my fridge and providing a safe haven for pickles is a comforting thought."-- the immortal Bill Mattocks

Originally posted by StaggerLeeI cant see how nobody has pointed out that the winningest pitcher of the 80s, and a World Series MVP and winner of World Series' with three different teams isnt in the hall.

Injustice of the year, Jack Morris.

High ERA. Playing for good teams helped his win totals.

Morris is sort of the additive inverse of Bert Blyleven, who struggled with somewhat crappy supporting casts through much of his career and is also waiting patiently for Hall admission.

As for Concepcion, writers tend to overvalue role players on championship teams (COUGH COUGH RIZZUTO COUGH) and postseason appearances in general. If Andre Dawson or Ryne Sandberg had been on playoff teams more often, they'd be in the Hall today.

(edited by vsp on 6.1.04 1709)

Jack Morris deserves it. His teams weren't much better than Blylevens. The high ERA comes from pitching to DHs in the AL in a hitters park. His ERA is similar to most top AL pitchers in his era. The main difference is Morris was the ace of his team every year starting on opening day. Blyleven was #2 behind Viola. I'd like to see more of a comparison between Blyleven and Tommy John, they had more similar numbers.

PS: The writers would never vote for Rizzuto, blame that one on the veteran's commitee.

Jack Morris deserves it. His teams weren't much better than Blylevens. The high ERA comes from pitching to DHs in the AL in a hitters park. His ERA is similar to most top AL pitchers in his era. The main difference is Morris was the ace of his team every year starting on opening day. Blyleven was #2 behind Viola. I'd like to see more of a comparison between Blyleven and Tommy John, they had more similar numbers.

There are so many holes in this analysis it's hard to get started.

First, if you look at adjusted ERA, Blyleven's career ERA was roughly 18% better than the league average over his career, while Morris' ERA was only 5% better. This is a pretty significant difference even after correcting for DHs and park effects. Also, FYI, Blyleven pitched to the DH in all but 6 of his 22 seasons (his first three seasons with the Twins and his three seasons with the Pirates).

Second, one of the biggest factors (aside from the asinine 'most winning pitcher of the 1980s') cited to defend Morris' induction into the HOF is his performance in the postseason. His career numbers are 7-4 record with a 3.80 ERA. On the other hand, Blyleven posted a 6-1 record with a 2.49 ERA.

Third, I don't know where the #2 behind Viola came from. Blyleven began his ML career in 1970, when Viola was 10 years old. And, of Blyleven's 22 seasons, he played with Viola for 3 seasons, plus August and September of 1985. And, he had already been in the league for over 15 seasons and had over 200 career wins when he joined Viola on the Twins.

Lastly, using baseball-reference.com as the source (which is the source for any stats used in this post), the three pitchers graded as having careers most similar to Blyleven were (in order): Don Sutton, Gaylord Perry and Fergie Jenkins. Tommy John ranked fourth. Jack Morris was graded most similar to Dennis Martinez, Bob Gibson, Tom Glavine, and Luis Tiant (again, in order). Only Gibson is currently in the HOF, and Glavine's numbers will not be similar to Morris' by the time Glavine retires. And, although their career stats are similar, Morris never came close to dominating the league like Gibson did in the late 1960s and early 1970s.

Blyleven compares better to Don Sutton (very similar K's, BBs and ERAs). Blyleven's teams barely averaged .500, with him ending at 287-250; Sutton played the prime of his career with the powerhouse Dodgers (career teams were around .535), ending at 325-256. Put Blyleven on the Dodgers and it's not hard to see him with >300 wins, which (for better or worse) would make him a shoo-in for the Hall.

Morris's teams were even better (.539). Take out the first year of Morris's career (where Morris only played in seven games) and when the wheels fell off in Detroit in 1989 (59-103), and only _once_ did Morris play for a sub-.500 team (1990, 79-83). Detroit ran off eleven >.500 years in a row with Morris; Blyleven had to deal with a lot of mediocre support early in Minnesota and late in Cleveland.

I'm not hating on Morris -- he was a helluva pitcher -- but Blyleven did a lot with less around him.

"As far as my lack of professional courtesy and my obvious immature humor in referring to using your head as a pickle jar, well, I reserve my courtesy for those whom I respect. Your lack of personal integrity has given me much grief, and I find that thinking of your hollowed-out head sitting on top of my fridge and providing a safe haven for pickles is a comforting thought."-- the immortal Bill Mattocks

Sandberg will probably go in next year. Voters need to remember that second basemen who could field AND hit for power used to be rarer than hen's teeth.

Mattingly had a handful of standout years, then a dropoff, then retired early. About the only HOF'er off the top of my head with a similar resume is Kirby Puckett, who got a wave of awww-he-hurt-his-eye-let's-vote-for-him sympathy.

Smith and Goose suffer from the stigma against closers. As noted, Eck had a starter's resume to go along with his stellar relief record. A case can be made for either, but I'm not sure that either will make it.

Rice is one of those guys who was pretty good for a long period of time, but never great. I wouldn't throw up if he made it in, but there are better names still waiting.

And once they're eligible (which must be the only reason they're not in), stamp a Cooperstown ticket for Tim Naehring and Mike Greenwell. Whatever happened to those guys?

You have a big stash of crack AND YOU'RE NOT SHARING. Shame!

"As far as my lack of professional courtesy and my obvious immature humor in referring to using your head as a pickle jar, well, I reserve my courtesy for those whom I respect. Your lack of personal integrity has given me much grief, and I find that thinking of your hollowed-out head sitting on top of my fridge and providing a safe haven for pickles is a comforting thought."-- the immortal Bill Mattocks

Originally posted by CorajudoJack Morris deserves it. His teams weren't much better than Blylevens. The high ERA comes from pitching to DHs in the AL in a hitters park. His ERA is similar to most top AL pitchers in his era. The main difference is Morris was the ace of his team every year starting on opening day. Blyleven was #2 behind Viola. I'd like to see more of a comparison between Blyleven and Tommy John, they had more similar numbers.

There are so many holes in this analysis it's hard to get started.

First, if you look at adjusted ERA, Blyleven's career ERA was roughly 18% better than the league average over his career, while Morris' ERA was only 5% better. This is a pretty significant difference even after correcting for DHs and park effects. Also, FYI, Blyleven pitched to the DH in all but 6 of his 22 seasons (his first three seasons with the Twins and his three seasons with the Pirates).

Second, one of the biggest factors (aside from the asinine 'most winning pitcher of the 1980s') cited to defend Morris' induction into the HOF is his performance in the postseason. His career numbers are 7-4 record with a 3.80 ERA. On the other hand, Blyleven posted a 6-1 record with a 2.49 ERA.

Third, I don't know where the #2 behind Viola came from. Blyleven began his ML career in 1970, when Viola was 10 years old. And, of Blyleven's 22 seasons, he played with Viola for 3 seasons, plus August and September of 1985. And, he had already been in the league for over 15 seasons and had over 200 career wins when he joined Viola on the Twins.

Lastly, using baseball-reference.com as the source (which is the source for any stats used in this post), the three pitchers graded as having careers most similar to Blyleven were (in order): Don Sutton, Gaylord Perry and Fergie Jenkins. Tommy John ranked fourth. Jack Morris was graded most similar to Dennis Martinez, Bob Gibson, Tom Glavine, and Luis Tiant (again, in order). Only Gibson is currently in the HOF, and Glavine's numbers will not be similar to Morris' by the time Glavine retires. And, although their career stats are similar, Morris never came close to dominating the league like Gibson did in the late 1960s and early 1970s.

Excellent post! This is nearly exactly what I was going to say as well. After reading Skorpio's flawed logic on Morris, I immediately went and dug up the numbers and was ready to post, then I read your post. Kudos. Great work.

The only other thing I would add it that in an 18 year career, Morris had 7 seasons where his adjusted ERA was worse than league average. 40% of the time, he was worse than league average. Blyleven, on the other hand, had 5 seasons out of 22 where he was below league average (22%) and they came near the end of his brilliant career.

Originally posted by vspBlyleven compares better to Don Sutton (very similar K's, BBs and ERAs). Blyleven's teams barely averaged .500, with him ending at 287-250; Sutton played the prime of his career with the powerhouse Dodgers (career teams were around .535), ending at 325-256. Put Blyleven on the Dodgers and it's not hard to see him with >300 wins, which (for better or worse) would make him a shoo-in for the Hall.

Morris's teams were even better (.539). Take out the first year of Morris's career (where Morris only played in seven games) and when the wheels fell off in Detroit in 1989 (59-103), and only _once_ did Morris play for a sub-.500 team (1990, 79-83). Detroit ran off eleven >.500 years in a row with Morris; Blyleven had to deal with a lot of mediocre support early in Minnesota and late in Cleveland.

I'm not hating on Morris -- he was a helluva pitcher -- but Blyleven did a lot with less around him.

I never understood the "his team was better, so he wasnt that good" concept. It baffles me. Bob gibson played on some great teams, so by that logic, he wasnt a great player? (note, I am NOT comparing the two, gibson would kick morris' ass 9 times out of 10)

People here cite his high era, but from 83 to 90 he was the lowest ERA on the team 4 times.

His teams only finished above third in the division twice, in 83 and 84.

The post season numbers I saw on Morris was 7-3. And, since when is somebody's post season the only consideration for thier HOF worthiness? If you want to go that route, he actually WON three titles. ANd, on that note, if Post season performances are really that important, lets not forget his 11 inning outing against the Braves in 1991. ANd, if you discount his getting BOMBED in Toronto, he only gave up 7 earned runs over 5 games in world series play, and in 1992 when atlanta rolled over him, he was 21-1 in the regular season.

162 wins in a decade is NOT assinine, however giving 430 homers in a career is something that should be overlooked?On thier career, Blylevin was only 37 games over 500, while Morris was 68 games over. 1.6 wins over 500 for a career compared to 3.7 over a career.

I am not saying Blylevin wasnt a great pitcher, I am just saying that Morris deserves a slot in Cooperstown before Blylevin.

Jason Stark of ESPN.com had this to say about Morris: Now here's a guy whose pendulum is swinging in the other direction. Two years ago, Morris had slipped under 100 votes. Now he's back up to 133 -- his most ever. His only black mark is that 3.90 career ERA, which would be the highest of any pitcher in the Hall. But we've said this before, and we'll say it again: Jack Morris' never-ending acehood -- for every team he ever pitched for -- made his ERA irrelevant. In his 14 peak seasons (1979-92), Morris won 41 more games than any other starter of his generation. He pitched a no-hitter. He started three All-Star Games. He was a clear No. 1 starter on three World Series teams. And Game 7, 1991, was his defining moment. He was an ace, from April to October. And he belongs in the Hall of Fame now.

Originally posted by Eddie FamousReese's walk total was substantially higher...Concepcion's K total substantially higher...there is really no comparison there. Reese was a much better offensive player.

I'm not sure what your point is here. Have you adjusted these figures to account for the fact that Reese played in an era more conducive to offensive production? Have you adjusted for the fact that Reese played his home games in a much better hitters ball? I'm presuming the answer is no. It's important to realize that when comparing the offensive stats of different players, the raw data is meaningless unless it is adjusted for these factors. Once you do that, you will see that there is not a substantial difference in offensive output between Reese and Concepcion. HOWEVER, even if these adjustments are NOT made, Reese is the fourth-best offensive match to Concepcion in similarity scores (baseballreference.com)

Again, this is before adjusting the raw data for era and ballparks. Obviously, for the reasons stated above, such adjustment will benefit Concepcion. BTW, allow me to also point out that Reese is a closer statistical match to Concepcion than Luis Aparicio (to address a comment from a prior post).

Originally posted by Eddie FamousIf Concepcion was all that to him, why was he platooned with Woody Woodward and Darrel Chaney for his first three-four years?

Both Concepcion and Woodward batted right handed. Obviously they were not platooned. They did, though, share shortstop duties for the Reds for Woodward's final two major league seasons (1970-1971), Concepcion's first two in the majors. In 1972, Concepcion's third season in the majors, he won the starting shortstop job (baseballlibrary.com). In 1973, his fourth in the majors, he was an All-Star.

Originally posted by Eddie FamousHe [Concepcion] was a decidedly average hitter (.267 lifetime), an okay fielder with a weak arm (therefore bouncing his throws to first from the hole).

Reese's lifetime batting average was .269. Once the data is adjusted for era and ballpark effects, it's obvious that Concepcion was a better hitter for average than Reese.

Originally posted by Tim McCarver circa 1983Concepcion is one of the best shortstops ever to play baseball. He's a good RBI man, hits for average, and is a Gold Glove fielder. He has good speed and can steal bases. There's not much left.

Originally posted by Bill James circa 1988An outstanding player of our time, and like all such, difficult to evaluate accurately. I see little difference, at a glance, between Concepcion and Pee Wee Reese.

Originally posted by Pee Wee Reese yes Pee Wee ReeseMark Belanger may be a little smoother. Larry Bowa is very quick. Rick Burleson is a leader type. Bill Russell has an accurate arm. But no one does everything as well as Concepction. It's possible no one ever has.

Bill James's comments are from his "Historical Baseball Abstract", 1988, published by Villard Books, while Tim McCarver's and Pee Wee Reese's quotes come from "Baseball: The Biographical Encyclopedia", edited by Pietrusza, Silverman, and Gershman, published 2003 by Sports Media Publishing Inc.

Now, you've already discounted Sparky Anderson's contemporaneous observations quoted in an earlier post. Certainly that is your right. You may also disregard the observations of Tim McCarver. Again, that is your right. Are you also prepared to throw out Pee Wee Reese's and Bill James's observations as well? How about the opinions of those who voted him the Gold Glove Shortstop in five different seasons? Not to mention making Concepcion a nine-time All-Star. Were all these people hopelessly misguided?

Dave Conception was the best Major League shortstop of the 1970's, as evidenced by the following:

He was an All-Star nine times (1973, 1975-1982). Five times he was the NL's starting shortstop, more than any other NL shortstop during that period. He was the Gold Glove winner at shortstop five times.Contemporaneous accounts recognize him as the best shortstop of his time.Bill James, in his "Historical Baseball Abstract", 2001 Edition, names him the Major League All-Star shortstop for the period 1970-1979.

Being the best player at your position during the decade that you played is a recognized definition of a Hall-of-Famer.

One thing I try to point out in these types of arguments is the fact that there is a "worst" Hall of Famer. Simply comparing one non-HOFer to one HOFer is not an accurate measure, because you need to look at the whole HOF.

I know that it's unfair to compare Concepcion to Ruth, but you need to compare him not just to Rizzuto and Aparicio, but to Yount as well (as just one example). I don't see Concepcion as worthwhile - he benefits from being a good/great player on a great team.

Originally posted by Downtown BookieHave you adjusted for the fact that Reese played his home games in a much better hitters ball? I'm presuming the answer is no. It's important to realize that when comparing the offensive stats of different players, the raw data is meaningless unless it is adjusted for these factors. . HOWEVER, even if these adjustments are NOT made, Reese is the fourth-best offensive match to Concepcion in similarity scores (baseballreference.com)

1. How does a better hitters ballpark make someone a much more selective hitter than another? Comparing the walk and strikeout numbers have very very little to do with ballparks.

2. Dave Concepcion was probably the best of a mediocre bunch of shortstops that played THROUGHOUT the seventies (had most of their career there), yes. That doesn't make him HoF material. I don't think there are ANY other all-70's shortstops in the Hof.

3. Stealing from Sec19Row53 here: even Bill James, when I interviewed him years ago, agreed that comparing players based on "worst in the hall" is bad business. I compared Concepcion to Reese and Aparicio statistically and they were very close. Reese probably shouldn't be in, Aparicio got in because he was a base stealer when no one else was, and he was commonly thought of among his peers as the best fielding ss, Reese notwithstanding.

4. Similarity scores DO NOT measure how much better a batter is than another.

(edited by Eddie Famous on 8.1.04 1654)"In the sky. Lord, in the sky..."

Originally posted by Eddie FamousStealing from Sec19Row53 here: even Bill James, when I interviewed him years ago, agreed that comparing players based on "worst in the hall" is bad business.

I agree as well. Indeed, as you can see in my statement as to why I believe Dave Concepcion is worthy of being considered for election to Baseball's Hall of Fame I make a point of not comparing him to any other Hall of Fame member:

Dave Conception was the best Major League shortstop of the 1970's, as evidenced by the following:

He was an All-Star nine times (1973, 1975-1982). Five times he was the NL's starting shortstop, more than any other NL shortstop during that period. He was the Gold Glove winner at shortstop five times.Contemporaneous accounts recognize him as the best shortstop of his time.Bill James, in his "Historical Baseball Abstract", 2001 Edition, names him the Major League All-Star shortstop for the period 1970-1979.

Being the best player at your position during the decade that you played is a recognized definition of a Hall-of-Famer.

Hopefully this answers your question.

As you can see, there are no references to any other Hall of Famers there, weak or otherwise.

Originally posted by Eddie Famous Similarity scores DO NOT measure how much better a batter is than another.

No, they measure how similar they are. Hence the name. Reese and Concepcion were very similar hitters. To state that one (for example, Reese) was substantially better than the other (for example, Concepcion) is demonstrably false, because they were in fact similar.

Originally posted by Eddie Famous How does a better hitters ballpark make someone a much more selective hitter than another? Comparing the walk and strikeout numbers have very very little to do with ballparks.

Actually, they do. Ballparks have measurable effects on all areas of hitting, pitching and fielding.

Look, I'm sorry to have to point this out, but your posts in this forum have contained several statements that are just blatantly false. For example:

You stated Dave Concepcion had a weak arm. He did not.You stated the Pee Wee Reese was a substantially better hitter than Dave Concepcion. He was not.You stated that the right-handed hitting Concepcion platooned with the right-handed hitting Woody Woodward. He did not.Now you're stating that ballparks do not effect strike out and walk totals. They do.

I simply must ask at this point: From what source are you deriving these demonstrably untrue statements?

Originally posted by Eddie FamousDave Concepcion was probably the best of a mediocre bunch of shortstops that played THROUGHOUT the seventies (had most of their career there), yes. That doesn't make him HoF material. I don't think there are ANY other all-70's shortstops in the Hof.

Now here, you express a valid opinion that I can respect 100%. If you are of the opinion that being the best player at your position during the era in which you played is not sufficient in and of itself to be HOF worthy, then I have zero problem with that. Obviously I don't agree with that opinion, but it's one that I respect because I believe that everyone has the right to decide for themselves what a player needs to do in order to be judged a true Hall of Famer. So, again, while this is an opinion I happen to disagree with, it's one that I can totally respect.

Originally posted by Downtown BookieActually, they do. Ballparks have measurable effects on all areas of hitting, pitching and fielding. .

If you can show me proof that those ballparks are the reason Reese walked 500 more times and struck out 300 less times than Concepcion, I'll go along with you.

Originally posted by Downtown BookieLook, I'm sorry to have to point this out, but your posts in this forum have contained several statements that are just blatantly false. For example: You stated Dave Concepcion had a weak arm. He did not.

It was very well known that Concepcion had a weak arm from the hole, that is why he very frequently used the astroturf and bounced the throw to first. Had his home field been on grass, his arm would have been much more exposed. How many games of his have you seen?

Originally posted by Downtown BookieYou stated the Pee Wee Reese was a substantially better hitter than Dave Concepcion. He was not.

I actually said he was a more productive offensive player. Which he was, ballparks notwithstanding.

Originally posted by Downtown BookieYou stated that the right-handed hitting Concepcion platooned with the right-handed hitting Woody Woodward. He did not.

You got me there. He didn't platoon. He shared time with a truly horrific offensive player.

Originally posted by Downtown BookieNow you're stating that ballparks do not effect strike out and walk totals. They do.

As stated earlier in this post, if you can show me conclusive proof that Pee Wee Reese would have 450 more Ks than walks had he played in Cincinnati, and Concepcion would have 320 more walks than K's had he played in Brooklyn, then I'll concede that point.

Originally posted by Eddie FamousIt was very well known that Concepcion had a weak arm from the hole, that is why he very frequently used the astroturf and bounced the throw to first. Had his home field been on grass, his arm would have been much more exposed. How many games of his have you seen?

First, allow me to say how flattered I am that you rate my own personal observations of Concepcion so highly (that is why you've asked me how many of his games I saw, right?). Since my date of birth is in my profile you can see I was of age to have been a baseball fan for the entirety of Concepcion's career (that is to say, I was a baseball fan before Dave Concepcion was a major league player). Still, while I know from personal observation that Concepcion was not "an okay fielder with a weak arm" allow me please to defer to those whom I've quoted in prior posts (not to mention those who voted him his five Gold Gloves) as I think their words should carry more weight. BTW, I noticed that you quoted no sources to substantiate your point, other than to say it was "well known." Sorry, but the contemporaneous quotes I've already cited show quite clearly that what was "well known" was that Concepcion was far from being just "an okay fielder with a weak arm."

Originally posted by Eddie FamousIf you can show me proof that those ballparks are the reason Reese walked 500 more times and struck out 300 less times than Concepcion, I'll go along with you.

As stated earlier in this post, if you can show me conclusive proof that Pee Wee Reese would have 450 more Ks than walks had he played in Cincinnati, and Concepcion would have 320 more walks than K's had he played in Brooklyn, then I'll concede that point.

I'm sorry, but I just want to be clear on exactly which point you would you be conceeding. That ballparks effect strikeouts and walks? That the average batter during Reese's era walked more and struck out less than the average batter in Concepcion's era? That Ebbetts Field was a better hitter's park than Riverfront Stadium? Please specify exactly which of these fact(s) you continue to dispute.

Also, I think it's fair to ask, what exactly would you consider "conclusive proof' that the era when a player played and the ballpark where a player hit effects his offensive output, including walks and strikeouts? After all, it seems that you're still holding to your position that Concepcion was just "an okay fielder with a weak arm" despite the evidence to the contrary presented in this thread. So please, define for me what specifically would be "conclusive proof" to you and I'll try to guide you to where you can find this information.

Originally posted by Downtown Bookie Since my date of birth is in my profile you can see I was of age to have been a baseball fan for the entirety of Concepcion's career (that is to say, I was a baseball fan before Dave Concepcion was a major league player). Still, while I know from personal observation that Concepcion was not "an okay fielder with a weak arm" allow me please to defer to those whom I've quoted in prior posts (not to mention those who voted him his five Gold Gloves) as I think their words should carry more weight. BTW, I noticed that you quoted no sources to substantiate your point, other than to say it was "well known." Sorry, but the contemporaneous quotes I've already cited show quite clearly that what was "well known" was that Concepcion was far from being just "an okay fielder with a weak arm."

If you did watch the Reds on NBCs Game of the Week back then, you would've heard Garagiola and Kubek mention Concepcion using the astroturf to compensate not having a strong enough arm for the deep short/third hole. Also that he was smart for doing so.

Originally posted by Downtown BookieI'm sorry, but I just want to be clear on exactly which point you would you be conceeding. That ballparks effect strikeouts and walks? That the average batter during Reese's era walked more and struck out less than the average batter in Concepcion's era? That Ebbetts Field was a better hitter's park than Riverfront Stadium? Please specify exactly which of these fact(s) you continue to dispute.

YOU were the one to bring up ballparks as a factor in OBP. If you could provide proof that the two ballparks were so different that the statistics I quoted would be reversed, then I would be better able to accept a thought that Concepcion was as productive as Reese.

(edited by Eddie Famous on 9.1.04 0225)"In the sky. Lord, in the sky..."

Originally posted by Eddie FamousIf you did watch the Reds on NBCs Game of the Week back then, you would've heard Garagiola and Kubek mention Concepcion using the astroturf to compensate not having a strong enough arm for the deep short/third hole. Also that he was smart for doing so.

Thanks for the response. It's good to know how you had arrived at your original conclusion that:

Originally posted by Eddie FamousHe was...an okay fielder with a weak arm (therefore bouncing his throws to first from the hole).

I'm also glad that I asked what it was you wished (in a prior post) to see proven. Since it was possible that you were still holding that this statement was true:

Originally posted by Eddie FamousComparing the walk and strikeout numbers have very very little to do with ballparks.

I thought perhaps you might be looking for evidence that ballpark factors (along with era) have an effect on a player's strikeout and walk totals. However, you make it clear in your next post that you were simply looking for proof that Concepcion was as productive on offense as Reese. If that is so, then I believe that the Similarity Scores quoted above from baseballreference.com have already established that to be so. However, more to the main point (and here I must apologize, because if I had properly noticed this earlier statement by you it could have saved not only both of us but also the poor readers of these posts much time) you had already made it clear during this exchange

Originally posted by Downtown BookieYou stated the Pee Wee Reese was a substantially better hitter than Dave Concepcion. He was not.

Originally posted by Eddie FamousI actually said he was a more productive offensive player. Which he was, ballparks notwithstanding.

that you don't believe the difference in offensive output between Reese and Concepcion to be substantial. Therefore it appears we are, in fact, in agreement on this point, that the difference in offensive production between Reese and Concepcion is not substantial.

He was a decidedly average hitter (.267 lifetime), an okay fielder with a weak arm (therefore bouncing his throws to first from the hole)

Originally posted by Eddie FamousBefore I reply:

The list below shows the top 100 shortstops in baseball history, according to The New Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract.

All-Time Player Ratings: Shortstop

26. Dave Concepcion

And, it looks as if we've reached an agreement here as well, since I presume your reason for posting this list was in order to back away from your earlier comment regarding Concepcion's accomplishments on the field. After all, a player obviously can't simultaneously be "a decidedly average hitter, an okay fielder" and yet still be one of the top thirty shortstops to ever play Major League Baseball. Oh, and while we're quoting from "The New Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract", I thought you might appreciate the following, since it helps to further answer your original question